Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited on 26 March, 2001
Manu/PH/0618/2005
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SUNIL CS (COMM) 115/2023 Page 88 of 140
SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:03.07.2023
15:35:51
56.8.7 The Supreme Court has endorsed the ingredients of passing off
as delineated in its earlier decision in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v.
Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.50(Cadila-I) Having distilled the
principles applicable to passing off, the Supreme Court has, in para 18
of the decision, returned findings on facts, after examining the rival
packs. It has held the colour scheme of the two packs to be almost
identical with a happy family superimposed in both, though the
number of members of the family were different. In that view of the
matter, the Supreme Court has held that the trade dress of the two
products was such that they could easily confuse a purchaser.
Additionally, it has been held that there is remarkable phonetic
similarity between the marks ―Glucon-D‖ and ―Glucose-D‖ and that
both are items containing glucose. Though a specific contention was
advanced, before the Supreme Court, that ―Glucose‖, being a
descriptive mark, could not be injuncted, the Supreme Court has not
returned any finding thereon, as it has proceeded on the premise of
passing off.